About your Search

20130224
20130224
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
, not just cutting the bloat in the pentagon budget so we don't have $500 hammers on a submarine, we're talking about saving money. my institute, the institute for policy studies, my colleague, marian pemberton has figured out we could save $200 billion just this year, not over ten years, in just the military side without doing anything that would put us at risk. >> what you have articulated is the progressive line on this which i am sympathetic to. but it is an austerian line. we're talking about raising taxes and cutting defense budget. what you're doing is diminishing the deficit and -- >> but actually the thing -- >> the military spending hurts our economy. >> in other words, this is basically -- what is so ironic about this is it kind of goes back to woodrow wilson, why are the fights so difficult or so vicious? because the stakes are so small. really in reality when you look at sequestration and we're talking about $85 billion this year, really only with $40 billion in real spending cuts, because of the way the budget operates with budget authority. you're looking at not a huge
be pentagon comptroller robert hale taking it in stride. he said when i walk down the hall, they still wave, but with fewer fingers. and that's "hardball" for now. coming up next, "your business" with j.j. ramberg. alec, for this mission i upgraded your smart phone. ♪ right. but the most important feature of all is... the capital one purchase eraser.
're making a 7%, 8% cut in the pentagon, the first thing you must do is pull back an aircraft carrier from the persian gulf. really, it's the first thing? with that said, when you begin looking at the numbers and the difficulty of cutting, you realize you can't furlough uniformed military personnel. you're going to end up furloughing civilians. you can't make certain cuts so they become more drastic. in this situation they could have made more long-term. they have multiple deadlines, as we all know. what people in congress are talking about, how to combine them. how do you combine the sequester with the budget battle coming up, with the debt ceiling fight that's going to come back again. how do you add those together so you come up with a larger deal. >> the washington dimension is striking, too. now you have bob woodward of the "washington post" taking on the white house saying the president is moving the goalpost by insisting on tax revenues being in there. let me read a portion of what's in his opinion piece this morning. the final deal reached between vice president biden and senate ma
department after getting in a little bit of hot water after saying the pentagon was treating manning unfairly. three years later, what are your thoughts on him now? >> for a caveat, the formal trial has not begun, but there is a legal proceeding under way, you know, regarding the charges and a potential, you know, plea-bargain. so this is a very open and transparent legal process, so it's not as if he's being held without charge. that said, obviously, two years ago i was concerned that it was punitive confinement at quantico. eventually the army moved him to ft. leavenworth, and he received more suitable pretrial confinement which is consistent with, you know, our norps both in the military and civilian justice system. he stands accused of very serious crimes, and the legal case will get under way late they are spring. >> p.j. crowley, always a pleasure. thanks. >> all right, alex. >> still ahead, manti te'o meets the press. how did he handle the barrage of questions about that infamous hoax? ♪ [ male announcer ] were you more interesting in your twenties, or now? when you were starting out
there's so many installations of military and defense workers. the pentagon noted more than 700,000 civilian military workers, department of defense workers, will effectively lose 20% of their pay. they will have to work one less day a week if this goes in effect. as one observer put it, it's like a low speed car crash heading our way. >> peter alexander from 1600. peter, thank you, sir. >>> wednesday morning the supreme court will hear arguments in a case called shelby county versus holder. it's a case that could determine the future of the landmark voting rights act of 1965. to find out what's at stake, we're going to go ahead and take a reality check on this sunday. peter bacon an msnbc contributor and editor of the grio. let's start at the beginning, if you will, for folks not following the story perhaps. what's at stake here on wednesday? >> the key thing at stake here is this is a law -- this is 1965, that lays out basically for a lot of southern states, states that had a history of discrimination, they had -- the big portion is they have to usually pre-clear any law about
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5